The New York Times today ran a demeaning Op-Ed about Tim Scott, the Republican Congressman from South Carolina who was just appointed to the seat being vacated by Jim DeMint.

The Op-Ed was written by U. Penn. Political Science Professor Adolf L. Reed Jr., The Puzzle of Black Republicans, and accused Republicans of engaging in tokenism by appointing Scott:

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress….

What? A token black and token east Asian, amounting to under 6% of the editorial board for each demographic. Said another way, a mere 12% of non-white ethnicity versus the sum of 17% for both ethnic groups swithin gthe population. Kick that up to 33% if you include Hispanic demographics….versus 18% if one of the whiteys is Hispanic. Diversity is in the liberal mind, evidently, not in the actual performance. You must believe as I say, citizens; what I do is none of your business.

They are not even diverse as to sex. Six women and eleven men…seventeen liberal communists. Never bought this rag. I got a flyer asking for a subscription a few years ago. I sent it back with large black letters written on it “do not defile my mail box with this communist rag again”. I never heard from them again. Do you think they realized I was turning them down?

[...] When they’re finished looking down their noses at Congressman Tim Scott, the editors at the New York Times may want to look into a mirror and examine the stunning lack of diversity in their newsroom. [...]

[...] onto the op-ed page of the country’s most esteemed newspaper (whose editorial board is itself nearly lily white) tells you all you need to know about how mainstream the tactic is among liberals. As an antidote, [...]

I will add one other thing, as a former liberal myself, I find white liberals to be some of the most racist vile disgusting filthy people I’ve ever seen or read. They are so desperate to prove they aren’t racists, they are racist towards pretty any other nonwhite person who disagrees with them and their race baiting nonsense.

At least the KKK is open with their racism, liberals, especially white liberals, just like they to pretend they aren’t racists.

When I’m driving and I see a political bumper sticker on a car, I always look inside to see “what one looks like”, whether it’s an environmentalist, an NRA member, Obama supporter, etc.

This year, I looked at a lot of drivers who had Obama/Biden bumper stickers. They were almost universally men in their 60s with facial hair.

I realized that they were men whose political values were forged around 1971. They had a filthy beard or moustache back then, and they never lost it. Those were their “good old days” when pot was plentiful and sex came without consequence. Problem is that 40 years later, they’re still stuck in that world.

And undoubtedly, the most important election issue for them in 2012 was making sure that we withdraw from Vietnam immediately.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me the most about the Democrats/Liberals. And I will never understand how we got to this place because its frankley more offensive to American blacks than an old white guy like me.
Liberals seem to believe they still own all the blacks in this country and any Republican black is treated about like a runaway slave..and heaven forbid the guy is a conservative Republican…now he is elevated to runaway having committed a “crime”.
What on earth can be more racist than advancing the fiction that because a Tim Scott or Justice Thomas doesnt agree with some imagined black “mob” he is not qualified to represent them in anyway?

I’m forwarding this post and thread to 10-Liberal/Lefty friends to get their day started with irritation. NO editorial page diversity at Pravda? How’bout Izvestia & The Daily Worker..cough..I mean The WaPo and L.A.Times..?

“[This 'first black' rhetoric] obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress. . . .”

Any time race is a factor in selection, it raises questions of tokenism vs. genuine progress. However, what evidence is there that Tim Scott’s appointment, in particular, was more a function of tokenism than genuine progress? What evidence is there that the GOP practices tokenism more than Democrats? I can name a LOT of instances in which the Dems could have been accused of engaging in tokenism based on the high-fives that greeted their “first Black this” or “first woman that.” Geraldine Ferraro, anyone?

And if Professor Adolf thinks “tokenism” is so bad, what does he have to say about affirmative action? With AA, there isn’t even the pretense that the person’s hiring, promotion, or enrollment into a prestigious institution was the fruit of genuine accomplishment. Even if Tim Scott WAS selected, in part, because he is black (which I am supposing just for the sake of argument), how can the party of AA criticize the GOP for this? It’s sheer hypocrisy.

When Jim Dement resigned from the Senate, he left a sizable conservative hole. Gov. Haley refilled that void with the appointment of another solid conservative in Tim Scott. This is not affirmative action and his race is irrelevant.

The only two obvious candidates for “token” status — to use his word, certainly not mine — are Professor Reed and one of his male colleagues, both of whom appear to be African-Americans with scholarly records heavily focused on race issues (not unusual for African-Americans in liberal arts departments focused on “diversity”). (Here I exclude the two professors who appear to be Asian-American, as Asian students are now overrepresented at elite universities like U. Penn., in comparison to their percentage of the general population.) For all I know, these two professors are superb scholars, and better than most of their colleagues. Then again, it may be that Professor Reed has been quick to accuse Republicans of engaging in “tokenism” at least in part because it is a concept he is familiar with from his own experience.

Yeah but, you completely forget the contention by most liberals that, if you can think like a black man, know their pain, it qualifies you to be known as black (or any other minority).
Are you forgetting America’s first black president, Prof, Slick Willy himself?
As far as liberals are concerned, if you are on the side of righteousness (yeah, sure.), it doesn’t matter your color to represent!
You really have to get with the program.

It coddled Jason Blair, a young black reporter who plagerized a great number of his stories. Even before his fraudulent writings were discovered, other writers and editors had challenged the authenticity of his articles — but all warning signs were ignored.

His editor in chief went to conventions, lauding the racial progress the Times had made, citing Blair’s reputation. It all came crumbling down when a former co-writer of Blair, then writing for a Texas newspaper, complained to the Times her writings had been purloined from an article she had previously written. When the Times finally looked into it, they found over half the most recently 50 articles Blair had written contained unattributed copy written by other authors.

Tne Times, along with rest of the liberal media, sees conservative black Republicans as a danger to black Democratic hegemony. They will demonize them as Uncle Toms, tokens or whatever. All you have to look at is the treatment Justice Thomas received at his confirmation hearings. Here was and is a truly honest conservative who happens to be black.